Is a Shortage of Desirable Men to Blame for Fewer Marriages?

New research suggests a mismatch between what men offer and what women want.

Marriage rates are on the decline in the United States and have been for the last few decades. Data offered by the U.S. Census show that nearly 70 percent of men and women were married in the 1950s, compared to about 50 percent in 2018—with a near 10 percent increase during the same time frame of men and women who report never being married.

There are a number of reasons for this demographic shift—for instance, delayed marriage, more long-term non-marital cohabitation, and perhaps less cultural emphasis on marriage. But might there be other reasons?

Why Aren't Women Getting Married?

New research identifies an interesting quirk in the marriage market that might explain declining rates of marriage (Lichter, Price, & Swigert, 2019). Taking an economic approach, the authors argue that there's a fundamental mismatch between what available men in the United States have to offer and what available women in the United States are willing to accept. Maybe, they propose, women aren't getting married because the highly desirable men are taken.

Focusing their analyses on single heterosexual women, the researchers used data from the American Community Survey (2008-2012; 2013-2017) to predict the likely characteristics of these women's husbands if they had husbands and then compared those characteristics to what's actually available in these single women's dating pool. More specifically, the researchers generated "synthetic spouses" for the single women in their sample by first matching them with demographically similar women (e.g., same race, education, military status, income) who happened to be married. The "synthetic spouses" were designed to reflect the characteristics of the husbands of the similar-married women. Thus—assuming women of similar demographics are looking for similar characteristics in their partners—this method offers a starting point for documenting the characteristics single women might be looking for in a partner.

The researchers then compared the "synthetic spouses" with the real and available men in the United States, and here's where things get interesting. These available men fell short.

Where Are the Marriageable Men?

So how bad is it? According to the study, the kind of men that single women likely would marry, if they married—i.e., the "synthetic spouses"—were not only 26 percent more likely to hold a job, and more highly educated, but they also had nearly a 55 percent higher income than what the available men in the U.S. actually make. In other words, from an economic standpoint, the dating pool lacks the kind of men that women might be particularly interested in attaching to, for the long-haul.

Additional analyses involved a matching process between single women and real available men nationwide, state-wide, or within a single woman's PUMA (public use micro-area data) to see if these women could, theoretically, find someone who matches the kind of men they would marry (i.e., someone like their synthetic spouse). In other words, how easy would it be for these single women to find desirable partners? This exercise extended their findings to include:

Older women have an even smaller dating pool of economically desirable men than younger women, who would have a slightly easier time finding a suitable partner

Well-educated women face more of a shortage of economically desirable men than lesser educated women

Minority women, particularly Black women, have a heightened unlikelihood of finding a partner who is economically desirable.

In general, it's harder to find an economically desirable man in one's own close geographic area than in the broader, nationwide comparison.

Adolescents today still report plans to marry (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2017) suggesting the consistent downward trend in marriage rates could reflect undesired singlehood, not necessarily choices to be single in the face of ample desirable options. Lichter and colleagues' (2019) research is compelling because it identifies a potential economic issue tied to sociodemographics that may be responsible for changes in marital rates. If the pool of marriageable men falls short of what women want, women might rather be single than settle.

Of note, the study offers a pattern and a potential explanation but does not show a clear cause-and-effect relationship in their modeling. Also, as much as we know that people tend to partner with similar others, we do not know the full extent to which the economic potential of men contributes to real-life dating decisions relative to other important factors (e.g., likability, kindness, good humor).

In a changing landscape wherein women are accessing education and delaying marriage more than ever, these findings become particularly intriguing. Will mismatches between the preferences of unmarried women and what unmarried men have to offer persist? Will the gap widen? Or are there cultural changes that would create a more balanced marriage market? Or, at the bigger level: maybe marriage isn't as culturally important as it once was?

This study assumes women marry their own race and income. Maybe that's prevalent in data from the married folks due to family or community pressure. At any rate, I think it's 2019 and a woman should be comfortable making more money than her spouse.

If this is the first time you read the comments under this article you should be aware that the bulk of the comments are written by the same person using multiple names. He wants to create the impression that there is a groundswell of people that think the system is rigged against men. Let me save you some time. His message is that women are bad people with bad intentions. Men are victims that are being wronged. Feminism is the cause of all the problems in the world and we are heading towards total societal collapse.

Maybe he is samefriending, but I'm not sure. Anyone with access to a dating site can see how much of a darwinistic hellscape modern relationships have become. Human mate selection isn't that different from that of animals at this point and is effectively polygynous.

Yes. It's a free society where people can say what they think and others are free to point out when that thinking is ridiculous. Some people think that if they repeat their ideas over and over again that somehow their ideas rule the day. Fortunately, it doesn't work. Readers can see through the motives and realize it's a bunch of crap.

Psychology Today is a private business. This forum is owned by that business. You can express your opinion here, but the freedom you speak of is restricted by them. Your contribution here is useful. Readers that are interested in how people think can glean a lot from your comments. Especially those readers that are interested in studying people that are on the autistic spectrum. Asperger's Syndrome is of interest to many people that read Psychology Today. Your Black & White thinking is a classic model for readers. Another thing readers can see is how much women frighten you. You're not just frightened by some women. You make it clear that all women should not be trusted. You even project this fear on to others. You assume that all married men can't trust their wife. Please continue to provide content here. It helps Psychology Today's bottom line to have free content providers here on the site.

Shaming language and deep denial - those are your only specialties, 'Notice'. You feminists march against men on the cities and streets men built and maintained, it the nations men fought and died for. Of course men rule, stupid.

The readers will appreciate that you brought your viewpoint to the top of the thread. Scrolling through over one hundred comments can be a daunting task. Now they can decide if it's worthwhile to read through the rest of them. Your comment gives them a quick reference point as to your message.

I apologize for any shaming language that was included in my previous comment. I was aiming for mockery.

Feminism: The colonization and appropriation of masculine achievements by man haters and their state pimps.

You've bought into feminist lies so fully that you're just too dumb to recognize the truth, Notice. It's great that women are finally supporting themselves, rather than financially exploiting men through marriage for their livelihood. It's great that women are finally serving in combat positions rather than exploiting a system of male human sacrifice for women's rights and privileges. It's long LONG past time women step up to the plate and support themselves and their demands on society. But blaming men isn't the answer, Notice. Men's greatest enemies are marriage, chivalry, courtly love and gynocentrism, which just happen to be women's greatest allies - that which women and their state pimps use to exploit men. Your body, your choice, YOUR responsibility.

Once again, you are cranking out the feminist fraud of conflating fear of feminism with fear of women. Society has always been gynocentric, but feminists have succeeded in weaponizing women against men - so prudent men shun danger wherever it occurs. It is because of feminism that men fear women, and with good reason.

It's not surprising that you missed the original point of the study that the article references: that men are doing poorer, as a result of feminist-inspired discrimination against men; and that poorer men are less" desirable" to feminist women.

t's important to note the damage caused by feminism to the larger culture, Feminists passed health funding bills only for women, and ignored male health, despite the shorter male life expectancy.

Feminist thugs made death threats against research sociologists Straus, Steinmetz and Gelles, after they published their findings that women batter men as often as the converse. The media has also participated in the cover-up.

I will venture a guess that the Psychology Today staff appreciates the unmasking of feminists, That can be the source of future blogs on metal health for both sexes, and the obstacles to same presented by feminists.

Frank said:
"It's not surprising that you missed the original point of the study that the article references: that men are doing poorer, as a result of feminist-inspired discrimination against men; and that poorer men are less" desirable" to feminist women."

I read through the article and didn't see the passage you referenced. The words feminist and feminism aren't mentioned in the article. Well-educated women is a term that was used. If anyone "missed the original point of the study" it was you. You seem to believe that any woman that has achieved some success in the workplace is a feminist. You're entitled to your opinion, but you should not misrepresent what was said in the article.

Francis, you also failed to grasp what it going on here. This is gynocentrism and misandry, and it couldn't be more obvious: Men ARE doing poorer, yet the study authors view WOMEN as the victims, for being unable to find a "suitable" husband.

Feminism IS a cause of men doing poorer. - there is rampant discrimination against men, and rampant discrimination in favor of women, in employment. Men now make up only 39% of college students. OF COURSE feminism as the cause of that problem will be conveniently ignored.

You may gain a better understanding of these scenarios if you get prostate cancer, then realize that feminism has resulted in many times more government funding for breast cancer.

I read through the article again hoping to find the section you're talking about. It's not in the article. It doesn't say men are doing poorly. It says that the guys that are doing well are already married. The article talks about "Marriageable Men". It talks about the single women's dating pool which does not have enough guys pulling in a big paycheck. There is not enough supply to meet the demand.

Your comment: "Men now make up only 39% of college students" supports what the article is saying. I'm not sure about the accuracy of your information, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. If it is true, the problem for well-educated women will continue until the societal pressure to find a guy equal to or better than the woman declines. The shift will happen quickly once it gets started. Successful women will start looking at regular guys as solid candidates for marriage. And, plenty of regular guys will be cool with that.

Sadly, Frank (a.k.a Main Splainer) is only interested in venting his anger/disappointment/suspicion/fear of women. He likes to paint women with one broad stroke: they're all out to use and manipulate men for their money. He clearly hasn't had good relationships with women, but that's on him and his poor choices of a companion. His opinion that women are to blame for men doing poorly financially, in school, in the workplace, etc. is laughable. It's easy to blame an entire gender for his woes instead of taking responsibility for his failings. Fortunately, Frank's views aren't shared by many.

Sam,
Just like every feminist, you conflate women and feminism. I said that FEMINISM is the reason that men are doing poorer, not women. You must have reading comprehension issue, or a cognitive dysfunction.
.
If you are male, you may get a clue, if you are diagnosed with prostate cancer, then learn that feminism has resulted in many times more funding for breast cancer.

If you are female, you have already shown that you are insufferable, and will likely grow old alone.

You posted "feminism has weaponized women against men". You clearly don't understand feminism, or what it means.

Based on the definition, most women are feminists. And I dare say, most men are too. Your continuous rant against feminism is just thinly veiled contempt for women.

Men who do poorly in school, at the workplace, or on the pay scale first need to look inward instead of trying to place blame on others. As far as prostate cancer, it's highly treatable when diagnosed early -- all the federal funding in the world won't help you if you don't get regular checkups, which men are less likely to do.

"Men who do poorly in school, at the workplace, or on the pay scale first need to look inward instead of trying to place blame on others..."

That's funny. The government created quotas for women when they did poorly in the workplace and created quotas for women in schools for women who couldn't afford it or did poorly. There were even women only scholarships and still are. Funny how it's ok to give women a leg up on men but not ok for men to get a leg up on women. The government even gives women pity points so that they can enter degree programs that result in highly paid jobs commonly chosen and dominated by men.

You see - men do understand feminism and know exactly what it means. Your definition of feminism is only fooling people such as yourself and your fellow misandrists. Feminism is the colonization and appropriation of masculine achievements by man haters. Every substantial structure on earth is/was built and maintained by men. The human sacrifice of male lives is/was used by women and the state to protect women and the state from harm. Women vote for said governments and the politicians that send men to their deaths on women's behalf. Clearly human sacrifice at women's behest.

How did you like the all-female engineering team that designed the Diversity Bridge in Florida? One of them said how female engineers were better than men engineers. They sure did a great job: it collapsed on the day it opened. Six people killed.

If a man gets prostate cancer, he will receive treatments that haven't been improved on in years or decades, as a result of the shortage of research funding. Did that ever cross your mind?

So you actually think that feminism is about equality? Then why aren't feminists lining up outside Selective Service offices, demanding that they be registered for the draft? Why aren't feminists demanding that men have the same right to refuse parenthood that women have had since 1972? Ever thought of that?

Feminism is about false accusations. Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer admitted that her accusations against Kavanaugh were motivated by his views on abortion.

Frank said:
"You may gain a better understanding of these scenarios if you get prostate cancer, then realize that feminism has resulted in many times more government funding for breast cancer."

I've notice this breast/prostate cancer comparison mentioned here several times. How have woman benefited from the government funding? We still have breast cancer don't we? Has the occurrence of breast cancer been reduced? If there is a breakthrough in the research it's likely to be useful in addressing other forms of cancer.

Francis Xavier is a perfect example of the 'empathy gap', but you'll never hear that phrase in the mainstream. You'll only hear about the phony pay gap and the phony domestic violence gap, never about the war and workplace death gap or the prison sentencing gap.

Xavier's understanding of gaps are internalized misandry personified by a low IQ combined with a hatred of men.

The comments in this thread are missing the point of the article. The demographic shift is about women having wealth and status prior to marriage. The comments about men losing in a divorce settlement are based on the idea that a man has more assets than the woman.

With the demographic shift women are at risk of losing some of their wealth in a divorce. This could be one of the calculations that give women pause when considering a man that makes considerably less than they do. Equal division of assets could be a financial windfall for the guy.

The results of this recent research are far from objective. Firstly, I would be surprised if you didn't find the same results when taking the male approach. Second, the idea that husbands used to be better in the 50s is pretty absurd - it's much more likely that standards for marriage satisfaction are just higher now. Most importantly, the article gives the notion that single women are just a random selection of all women with no skewing. Any men or women that are currently single have a story that has led to them being single right now. It's certainly not fair to say that all single people are single because no one wants to be with them, but I think it's safe to say that single people are going to be less desirable partners, on average, than married people. Maybe that's what the article is really trying to say, but I think this applies both ways and not just to men.

To add another factor to decreasing marriage, I would say the decline of religion probably has a major impact on the desire to get married.

The study you refer to said that women were finding a shortage of "economically attractive" men. That was the specific term used by the researchers.

Men are NOT valued for their intrinsic worth, but for their "economically attractiveness", or lack of same. THAT should be of concern to mental health professionals and the general public alike.

The fact that men are doing poorer financially should also be a cause for concern, but it isn't: the gynocentrism so plainly evident is only for how this situation impacts women.

This may all be a moot point, in light of the fact that men are increasingly shunning marriage, out of fear of being destroyed in divorce court. (Augustine Kposawa found that the post-divorce suicide risk for men increased EIGHT times, but remained unchanged for women).

Frank, please flip this. Men insist on, are drawn to, are fooled by physical beauty in potential partners or otherwise. Think about how it affects our mental health too, how even an attractive woman in her 30s is deemed less 'valuable' than a young girl, how at menopause we are completely dismissed regardless of qualities or even attractiveness. Do you even have a clue what that feels like? Do you realise that some gorgeous women are disregarded because they are not considered an '8-10'? Please let's smash the myth that men do not aggressively select. I have a lifetime record of selecting partners not for their income and I was the only one who paid for it in the end.

Ana, OF COURSE I realize that the pain of rejection cuts both ways, and that both sexes reject the other sex for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

I'm not sure that you get the misandry of this study (and the pervasiveness of misandry in the culture): that men are doing worse economically, but WOMEN are the victims of that; and that men are not "desirable" because they are poorer. To be fair, very few women are concerned about misandry.

This is nothing new: feminism and feminists, and the culture that supports them, have been telling men that they suck for the last 50 years. It has resulted in the fact that men are doing poorer, then turns around and blames the men for doing worse.

Men also FEAR women, for their ability to, among other things, falsely accuse men of any number of crimes, and get away with it. Perhaps you saw that Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer admitted that her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were motivated by his beliefs against abortion? Good case in point.

Not only are their fewer marriages, but less dating, and less sex. Speed Dating events have been held in which no men showed up.

Men want women that acknowledge and reject the misandry that is so prevalent in the culture, as that is their best hope for happiness and staying out of jail and bankruptcy court. Female MRAs are the only ones that pass this test, and the only ones I will go near.

A man has to be successful and attractive (a genetic factor, mind you) to get a woman. A woman literally just has to be below 30 to get a man, and I even have doubts about that. The disparity in difficulty between these two cases isn't even funny.
Maybe the top 10% of men can select, but the rest can't.

Just look at online dating. A woman can easily get dozens of men vying for her attention by simply showing up, no matter her level of attractiveness. Considering that around 40% of relationships today start through online dating, it seems pretty obvious that dating for women is "just exist mode."

It sounds like some kind of scifi - a dating site - one passive man with 20 suitors - women competing to invite him to a dinner out. All he would have to provide would be just a few photos from a professional photogtapher...

That sounds really funny - this man surely will have some interesting stories about the photos being taken...

Well, here is the flip side as far as the pool of women and what they bring to the table. I'm economically desirable enough. Not rich or what I consider really wealthy, but I make triple the median household income as a single male and have plenty of disposable income.
I'm just over 40 and "attractive". I have zero interest in marrying any female, even a "10" that cant support herself without me. I'm not a female piggy bank and I have practically as many dating options as I want or have time to pursue at any given time. And I'm content with that and not willing to give that up for a woman who brings significantly less to the table in looks and financially. You could easily flip this article from my point of view - the pool of available females for what I want is shallow, be able to support yourself financially and bring that to the table. It isnt the man's job to support the female financially any more and I wont do it. I expect the female to bring something to the table financially since I do if commitment is even in the discussion. Otherwise I am much better off and happier dating, a pool that is a deep plentiful one in a big city.

Well, this description summarizes it nicely = I do not call this approach "attractive" and I hope it transpires out from every single of your pores to warn women against daiting somebody with such a superficial life.

Though it is worth to consider the money issue, there are quite a lot of more important factors for women to look for in a man. And you sound as someone who puts money on top of the list.

Just what kind of woman values a man for the content of his wallet over the content of his character? One that I wouldn't want be around.

Men are doing much poorer in many areas than they were decades ago. The real income of men today is less than it was in 1972. Sex discrimination against men in employment has been going on for decades. It is illegal in theory but very common in actual practice. That effects of that discrimination are playing out in this situation.

Do men's poorer outcomes trouble women? Evidently, only insofar as women's inability to find a man with the amount of money that they desire.

There was another study of the "Foodie Calls" phenomenon. That study found that between 25% and 33% of women would date a man that they were not attracted to, in order to get a free meal.

And what do women offer men? Fifty years ago, there was a symbiotic relationship between men and women. There was a spirit of mutual cooperation. Fifty years of feminism destroyed that.

Now men are not only shunning marriage, but, in many cases, also shunning interactions with women entirely.

Fifty years ago, women were more or less trapped in the home. She was denied access to her own wages, denied access to nearly all professions, and often denied the right to own her own property. Marriage was near-universal, because single women had few rights; they were paid less than married women, never mind equal pay with men.
I knew as a little girl that marriage wasn't my thing. So many women haven't married because they don't need to be married to live reasonably well.
By the way, I always insist on going Dutch on dates, maybe you should too.

I always say "Let's go dutch". One feminist replied, after giving me a look that could have stripped the paint off my car, That's fine, we're just friends anyway".

The problem with feminists is that they see equality as a one-way street. They are entirely unconcerned with the inequalities that men face. Being around them is like being in a non-stop arm wrestling match.

Marriage was near-universal because of the symbiotic relationship men and women had. Divorce was rare for the same reason. With the rise of feminism, the divorce rate went from 10% to 50% overnight...then men started walking away.

Single women, of course, had and kept their own wages. Part of the fraud of feminism is that single women have historically out-earned single men, and that has been the case since the 1950s.

The reality here is that women want a high-income man to take care of them, so that they can stay home with the children. Problem is that single men have jumped off the corporate fast track, in part because of the rampant discrimination against men. So, women go without husbands because of their frustrated expectations.

The only women I will personally be around are female MRAs. They understand what men go through, and support us. In turn, we adore them. That's a return to the old concept of male and female symbiosis. Very rare in the age of feminism.

You are so full of it. 50 years ago, men were shamed/brainwashed into caring for women physically and financially by women and the state, which still happens a lot today. Everything wasn't automated and easy then, meaning women would have had to work harder at work than at home, so women exploited men for financial resources. It wasn't until men made jobs relatively mussed hair free and broken nail proof that women decided they wanted to work outside the home.

Just as men aren't entitled to sex with you, you're not entitled to men's resources. Our wallets, our bodies, our choice. I'm thankful for feminism too. It released men from the slavery and drudgery of the oppressive 'Provider & Protector' role wrought upon men by the entitled evil matriarchy and their state husbandry.

Every substantial structure on earth was built and maintained by men. It was the human sacrifice of male lives on women's behalf that bought women their rights; hence women bought their rights with men's blood.

That's the problem with you feminists; your criminal distortion of history and statistics.

It's only going to get worse as more women than men enter college, increasing the ratio of wealthy women to wealthy men, effectively bottlenecking women's marriage pool. Maybe it's time to drop the hypergamy schtick?

Marriage used to be an almost mandatory part of life. Mostly because sex meant children and because religion was so prevalent that children outside marriage was a scandal.

Religion is not prevalent in my area and most of my friends who chose to go for the family life did not marry. Having kids and purchasing a house together seems enough of a commitment. So no marriage in their case doesn't mean absence of suitable man. It just means suitable man without a written contract and without a big expensive party.

Personally, I didn't want kids and without the desire to form a family unit, marriage is even less relevant. I am not even that interested in sharing my life with someone. Maybe when I retire and have more free time. When dating becomes serious, men often complain that I am not available enough. It's true my attention is on my work and travel plans. It makes me feel alive to discover the world and I love my work, I feel like I'm building something. Relationships are far on my list of priorities.

It is not a representation of the lack of good men, it's a question of trying to fit a relationship that requires care and attention in a life that is already full of projects. Then even if you find the time and space, does the man that you like want that relationship too? I find that many men also consider relationships a leasure activity.

Anyhow, I just found a new work contract abroad and the man I'm seeing has a good situation locally right now so we shall remain friends and never marry. None of us consider that the relationship is more important to our happiness than our other projects... And for the traditionalists, even if he offered to support me in case I couldn't find another local job, I wouldn't accept. Too much to lose if the relationship doesn't work out.

Interesting points in the article. As a woman, it's really never about the money necessarily but it's about how I feel when I'm with a guy. For example, my family weren't the richest in our neighborhood but I always felt like I never had to worry about anything including money.

Also, I am a black woman who would date outside of my race and ethnicity but it's not my preference. I do think some of us (not all) may feel the same way which may limit us in the dating pool with desirable men.

I think it's pretty simple. In the past, societal constructs made it difficult for men to access a regular supply of sex, and difficult for women to have independent financial security. Now, between porn and hook-up culture, men don't need to marry to get sex -- in fact, they might get more without marrying. And women don't need men to be financially secure. So there is no compelling reason to marry unless you have a moral/religious reason to do so. We don't need each other anymore!

You are right, Scarlett, that men and women don't need each other anymore.

For what it's worth, my observation about women is that they DO want a man, but they are extremely picky about it. On the coffee dates I have been on, they glare at me across the table that seems to say, "Okay, fella, show me what you got. This better be good". Perhaps they assume that position because they were angry about having to pay for their own coffee.

But you are right that things are not good between the sexes. Speed dating events have been held where no men show up. Women go on "Foodie Calls" to snag a free meal. Men can charm a woman into the sack, and have sex without commitment.

Women want to marry a man that makes more money than they do, so they can stay home with children. Many men don't think that's a good deal.

Married men offer lies. First they "forget" to mention they are married, then they say they are "separated", etc.

Some people want to believe it. Some people are attracted to problems. Maybe those women do not even want to get married to that married liar... People generally do not know what they want from the future - they may know what they want from the present moment but planning the future may be different.

What I miss in this article is this: I read that women find different men attractive when on contraceptives and they change their preferences when not on contraceptives, which may cause problems to long term couples that start planning a child.